Indiana Wetland Compensatory Mitigation: Area Analysis€¦ · wetlands experienced a net loss of 4.15 ha (10.3 ac) raising concerns that forested areas are being replaced with shallow

Indiana WetlandCompensatoryMitigation:Area Analysis

EPA Grant # CD985482-010-0

June 2001

Prepared for:

USEPA, Region 5Acquisition &Assistance Branch77 West Jackson Blvd.Chicago, IL 60604

Prepared by:

James T. Robb

Indiana Dept. of Environmental ManagementP.O. Box 6015Indianapolis, IN 46206(317) [email protected]://www.state.in.us/idem/owm/planbr/401/mitigation_monitoring.html

mailto:[email protected]://www.state.in.us/idem/owm/planbr/401/mitigation_monitoring.html

Indiana Wetland Compensatory Mitigation: Area Analysis Robb 2001

2

Cover ArtMitigation sites documented in 1998 and 1999 (Robb 2000). Blue triangles mark the location ofconstructed mitigation sites, yellow squares mark incomplete mitigation sites, and red octagons indicate thelocation where a mitigation site was required to be, but had not yet been attempted.

AcknowledgementsI would like to first acknowledge the USEPA Region 5 for funding this study and Cathy Garra for hertechnical assistance throughout this Grant. The staff at the Indiana Dept. of Environmental Managementdeserve special appreciation for their courage; it is not an easy thing to have a stranger dig through, analyzeand criticize decisions you made five or ten years ago. The leadership at IDEM also deserves a great dealof credit for fostering an environment of honesty and integrity, which made this critique of the programpossible. Finally I would like to thank Dr. Daniel Willard, my professor and mentor. Without his guidancethis report would not be possible.


3

Executive Summary

The purpose of this study was to gauge the performance of compensatory mitigation efforts in Indiana bymeasuring the area of wetland established as a result of these efforts. This study used Global PositioningSystem (GPS) techniques to map the total area of wetland, and the area of each wetland vegetationcommunity, established at 31 randomly selected wetland compensatory mitigation sites in Indiana. TheIndiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) required 34.31 ha (84.7 ac) in compensationfor the 13.72 ha (33.9 ac) of state waters lost through the permit actions associated with these sites. Themapping effort demonstrated that a total of 15.21 ha (37.6 ac) of wetland and other waters had establishedat these sites, a net gain of 1.49 ha (3.7 ac). Mapping of each vegetation community at these sites revealedthat forested areas, which had a failure rate of 71%, and wet meadow areas (87% failure) were harder toestablish than shallow emergent areas (17% failure) and open water areas (4% failure). Compensation forthis risk of failure would require minimum mitigation ratios of 3.4:1 for forested, 7.6:1 for wet meadow,1.2:1 for shallow emergent, and 1:1 for open water. Additional mitigation may be needed to offset theeffects of temporal loss of wetland function. Although there was a net gain in area over all, forestedwetlands experienced a net loss of 4.15 ha (10.3 ac) raising concerns that forested areas are being replacedwith shallow emergent and open water community types.

IntroductionThe Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) for many years has required thereplacement of wetlands whose destruction is unavoidable. Mitigation of wetland loss consists of firsttaking all practicable steps to avoid and minimize the impact. Restoring or creating a wetland mitigationarea then compensates for unavoidable loss. Although rare, IDEM has also required compensation in theform of enhancement of one or more of an existing wetland’s functions, preservation of an existingwetland, and donations to an organization that restores wetlands. These less conventional forms ofcompensation were not evaluated by this study. In 1998 and 1999 IDEM inventoried 345 conventionalmitigation sites required from 1986 through 1996 (Robb 2000). Applicants had constructed 214 (62%) ofthe sites, leaving 70 (20%) incomplete. No attempt had been made at 49 (20%) of the sites.

Numerous authors have expressed concern regarding compensatory mitigation. Early studies indicated thatnot only did regulatory agencies not require enough mitigation to compensate for losses (Kentula et al1992; Sifneos, Kentula and Price 1992; Kunz, Rylko and Somers 1988), but that the mitigation was ofteneither not done or done poorly (Redmond 1992; Erwin 1991; Reimold and Cobler 1986; Race 1985; Eliot1985; Race and Christie 1982). A recent study in Ohio showed that some agencies may still not requireenough in compensatory mitigation (Sibbing 1997). Other recent studies found that a large portion of therequired compensatory mitigation is still not being constructed (Robb 2000; Mockler et al 1998; Race andFonseca 1996; Johnson et al 2000). The compensatory mitigation that is being constructed often does notcompensate for what was lost (Gwin, Kentula and Shaffer 1999; Magee et al 1999; Gallihugh 1998;Mockler et al 1998; Fennessy and Roehrs 1997). On the positive side Wilson and Mitsch (1996) found fourof the five sites they looked at to be both in compliance and at least moderately successful. Fennessy andRoehrs (1997) found that all the sites in their study had been constructed. Unfortunately none of thesestudies address one very important element: the size of the wetland actually established at the mitigationsite. This study was designed to address this data gap. Without this information we cannot evaluate theperformance of a regulatory program, since area of wetland to be established has been a constantrequirement of both the US Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) and IDEM mitigation programs. We knowthat mitigation is risky. The previously cited studies prove that. This risk of failure, combined withtemporal loss of function, is the rational for the requiring compensatory mitigation area in excess of thearea of impact. This is known as the mitigation ratio. What is an appropriate mitigation ratio? How muchdoes a regulatory agency need to require to insure that the area lost will be replaced by the applicant’sattempts?

http://www.state.in.us/idem/owm/planbr/401/mitigation_monitoring.htmlhttp://www.aswm.org/mitigation/erwin91.pdfhttp://www.state.in.us/idem/owm/planbr/401/mitigation_monitoring.htmlhttp://www.aswm.org/mitigation/mockler98.pdfhttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0006016.htmlhttp://www.aswm.org/mitigation/gallihugh98.pdfhttp://www.aswm.org/mitigation/mockler98.pdf


4

Methods

Site SelectionIn a previous inventory IDEM recorded the location of all 345 mitigation sites, and documented theconstruction status of each as either constructed, incomplete or no attempt (Robb 2000). The authorselected the certifications at random by assigning each of the certifications with at least one site classifiedas constructed a computer generated random number. The certifications were then sorted in ascendingorder. The author measured the constructed sites required by the first sixteen certifications. A total of 31sites were selected in this way.

EquipmentEach vegetation cover type within the wetland area of each site was mapped using a Trimble ProXR GlobalPositioning System (GPS) receiver. The manufacturer of this GPS unit reports its accuracy at 0.75-metersRMS after differential correction plus one part per million times the distance between the rover and thebase. In no case was the distance between the base and the rover greater than 300 km. In most cases thisdistance was less than 100 km. All GPS data collected during this study were differentially corrected.

Photographs were taken with an Olympus D-320L at the same location as the inventory picture (Robb2000). Additional photographs were taken at other locations as needed.

Wetland Delineation

The wetland line was drawn at the furthest extent that supported a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetationand wetland hydrology as defined by the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineer 1987 Delineation Manual(Environmental Laboratory 1987). Normally the 1987 Delineation requires a site to meet three parameters:prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation, presence of one primary or two secondary indicators of wetlandhydrology, and hydric soils. An exception is made in the case of man-induced wetlands. Man-inducedwetlands must meet only the hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology parameters. According to the 1987manual wetland soils are presumed to exist or to be forming if wetland hydrology exists on the man-induced wetland site. Soil information is not necessary in making a wetland determination on mitigationsites, which are by their very nature man-induced. Soils are particularly misleading on mitigation sites. Inmany cases mitigation has been constructed on previously drained hydric soils. Finding hydric soilindicators in these cases does not necessarily reflect current conditions. In other cases mitigation isconstructed by over-digging an area and spreading a layer of wetland soil from another site. Again theexistence of hydric soil indicators does not necessarily reflect current conditions at the mitigation site.Another method of mitigation is to simply excavate down to the water table. Again this may lead to thepresence of hydric soil indicators, especially gley or mottling, which existed in the subsoil before it wasexposed but may not be indicative of current conditions. Nevertheless, one pit was dug in each mitigationsite to a depth of at least 46-cm (18 inches) except in sites that were entirely inundated.

Vegetation Cover Types

All community types where determined qualitatively by visual estimation using the following guidelines.Though some effort has been made to classify these communities, in reality each type grades into the other.There is rarely a distinct border, for example, between a meadow area and an emergent area. In the case ofthe forested and shrub types, the distinction made here is merely a prediction. Of course no forests haveformed on any of these sites, with the exception of the mature stand of trees that was flooded at site1994031M02, though most contained immature trees. In fact, few meadow communities were identified,possibly due to the invasion of these areas by Populus deltoides (cottonwood).

Forested vegetative communities were considered to be establishing if live tree species were moderatelydense (i.e. visually estimated to be 20 foot on center or denser). Dense bands of Populus deltoides

http://www.state.in.us/idem/owm/planbr/401/mitigation_monitoring.htmlhttp://www.state.in.us/idem/owm/planbr/401/mitigation_monitoring.htmlhttp://www.state.in.us/idem/owm/planbr/401/mitigation_monitoring.htmlhttp://www.wes.army.mil/el/wetlands/wlpubs.html


5

(cottonwood) seedlings occupied areas of many sites in areas that are generally inundated. Data from theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Association indicate that 1999 was the 17th driest year on record(NOAA 1999a). These seedlings are unlikely to persist under normal hydrological situations. For thisreason on older sites (greater than 3 years old), very young (less than 20 cm tall) Populus deltoidesseedlings alone did not qualify the area as forested, though a mixture of older cottonwood, or other treespecies with the seedlings would qualify.

Shrub vegetative communities were considered to be establishing if shrub species were moderately dense(i.e. visually estimated to be 20 foot on center or denser), and tree species were sparse (i.e. visuallyestimated to be less than 20 foot on center). In cases where neither tree or shrub species meet the densityrequirement alone, a combination of tree and shrub species 20 foot on center or denser was consideredforested.

Meadow vegetative communities did not meet the above criteria for forested or shrub types. These areaswere dominated by plants tolerant of saturation but not prolonged inundation (e.g. Carex spp., Euthamiaspp., Panicum virgatum, Eupatorium perfoliatum, Mimulus ringens, Aster simplex, Geum spp., Panicumdichotomiflorum, Cyperus spp., Asclepias spp., Agrostis alba, Agrostis alba palustris, Lycopus spp.,Impatiens spp., Verbena hastata, etc.). These areas often included a large proportion of upland plants,facultative plants, and shallow emergent species.

Shallow vegetative communities lacked the criteria above for forested or shrub types. They differ frommeadow by supporting vegetation tolerant of, shallow (less than 6 inches) inundation. These plants includeTypha spp., Sagittaria spp., Alisma spp., Scirpus tabernaemontanii, Juncus effusus, Leersia oryzoides,Polygonum spp., Sparganium spp., Eleocharis spp., etc. These areas often contained a large proportion ofmeadow plants as well as deep emergent, but few upland species.

Deep vegetative communities lacked the above criteria for forested or shrub types. These areas weredifferentiated from floating by rooted plants that produce plant parts at or above the waterline. Plantstypical of the deep community type were tolerant of permanent inundation greater than 12 inches deep.Typical plants include Potamogeton spp., Nymphaea tuberosa, Nuphar spp., Polygonum amphibium, etc.

Floating and submerged vegetative class included those communities dominated by species withadaptations that allow them to live completely (or nearly completely) submerged. The class also includesspecies that float in the water column or at the surface without attachment to the substrate. These speciesinclude Chara spp., Lemma spp., Myriophyllum spp., Ceratophyllum demersum (coontail), etc.

Upland vegetative communities were those areas of the site which failed to meet the hydrophyticvegetation requirements or the indicators of hydrology listed in the 1987 US Army Corps of EngineersDelineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987).

Open Water/Bare Ground this class was reserved for those areas that supported little or no vegetation.This included areas with sparse vegetation visually estimated at less than 10% aerial coverage of the area.

GPS MappingEach wetland type described above was mapped using a GPS during the summer of 1999. The authorwalked around the edge of each polygon recording one point every five seconds. A range finderattachment was used to map the extent of vegetation in deeper waters. The author kept notes regardingwhere edits needed to be made in the GIS. All GPS data were differentially corrected using the nearestbase station. In no case was the base station greater than 300 km away.

GIS editing and analysis

The GPS data went through an editing process. First, if the laser range finder was used these points wereassembled into polygons. Then edits were made based on the field notes. These notes corrected attributes

http://www.wes.army.mil/el/wetlands/wlpubs.html


6

recorded in the data logger and described how to edit the polygons. The most important aspect of the fieldnotes was the sketch of the site that allowed the author to correctly remove overlap between the polygons.Wetland types tend to transition into each other. In many cases the types are nearly concentricallyarranged. To avoid walking the same line multiple times the author recorded the outermost one first thenthe inner polygon with the GPS unit. If left unedited this would artificially inflate the area of the outerpolygon since it also includes the area of the inner polygon. This problem was avoided by subtracting outthe overlap. Upland inclusions were subtracted out in the same manner. In other cases a wetland typefollowed a previously recorded line for part of its length but not all of it. There was no reason to re-mapthis line; instead the new polygon was edited to match the previous polygon along that segment.

Imagine that Figure 1 represents a mitigation site.The white areas represent upland, the green areasrepresent shallow vegetative communities, theblue represents open water, and the purple arefloating vegetation areas. The first step inmapping would be to identify the extent of thewetland boundary. For this example it is the outeredge of the shallow polygon. The observer wouldflag as necessary to mark the wetland boundaryalways looking for shifts in vegetation dominanceand indicators of hydrology. The observer mayalso flag the line between vegetation communitieswhere this line is convoluted or vague. The observer then walked the outer boundary of the shallowvegetation zone with the GPS unit recording the polygon. While mapping the observer would stop andmake notes of vegetation, draw a sketch of the polygon being mapped, and make notes of any edits thatwould need to be made during processing. The observer then walked the outer edge of the open waterpolygon again making notes and modifying the sketch as needed. Finally the observer would walk thefloating polygons, or if the water level were too deep, he would use the range finder attachment for the GPSunit to map the extent of the floating vegetation within the open water polygon. Upon return to the officethe observer then used ArcView software to edit the map. First any of the floating areas which weremapped with the range finder had to be assembled into polygons from the coordinates collected. Next theopen water and floating areas were subtracted from the shallow polygon creating a thin doughnut shapedpolygon with a large hole in the center for the shallow area. Next the floating polygons were subtractedfrom the open water polygons leaving the open water polygon. In this way all overlapping areas wereremoved. The XTOOLS extension (DeLaune 2000) calculated the area of each of the resulting polygonsautomatically.

ResultsThe sixteen certifications forthe 31 mitigation sites allowedimpacts to 13.72 ha (33.9 ac)of wetland and other waters ofthe state (Figure 2). IDEMrequired 34.31 ha (84.7 ac) ofwetland or other waters of thestate in compensation, orapproximately 2.5 hectares ofmitigation for every onehectares of permitted impact.The GPS measurementsrecorded 15.21 ha (37.6 ac) ofwetland and other waters thathad actually established. Thisis a total net increase of 1.49ha (3.7 ac). The overall area

Figure 2: Hectares Lost, Required, and Built

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Lost

Required

Built

HectaresFOREST SHRUB MEADOWSHALLOW DEEP FLOATINGOPEN MIXED UNSPECIFIED

http://www.odf.state.or.us/StateForests/sfgis/default.htm#odf State Forests GIS Tools


7

built was greater than the area lost in all vegetation types except for forested which saw a net-loss. IDEMpermitted the loss of 7.98 ha (19.7 ac) of forested wetland, required 13.18 ha (32.56 ac) in forestedmitigation, but only 3.82 ha (9.44 ac) had been established.

Discussion

No-Net-Loss?

Mitigation ratios are meant to compensate for two factors: the temporal loss of wetland function from thetime the impacts are made to the time the mitigation site is mature, and the risk of mitigation failure. About44 percent of the total wetland mitigation area required was established by the applicants’ attempts. Due tomitigation ratios imposed by IDEM and the COE, this resulted in a net gain of 1.49 ha (3.7 ac) of waters ofthe state (including open water), and a net loss of 0.76 ha (1.9 ac) of non-open water wetland. The averageratio of 2.5:1 documented in this study does appear to compensate or nearly compensate for the risk offailure. Temporal loss of function, however, is uncompensated by this ratio.

While this area analysis seems to indicate a net-gain in wetland area, this is not entirely accurate. Nearly35% of mitigation sites have not been constructed even though the permitted losses have occurred (Robb2000). This study, however, does not factor in the loss of wetlands for which no mitigation was required,losses that are not regulated by IDEM, or violations that IDEM knows nothing about. Factoring in theseunmitigated losses, and the temporal loss of function, Indiana’s no-net-loss goal has not been achieved.

Figure 3: Area Summary

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Vegetation Type

Hec

tare

s

Lost(ha) 7.977108 0.648 3.255736 0.686 0.732 0 0.02 0.2 0.204516Required(ha) 13.1824 6.24 6.1852 3.076 2.808 1.076 0.8352 0.6964 0.2076Built(ha) 3.823 0.822 5.157 2.939 0 0 0.916 0.401 1.154

Forest Meadow Shallow Open Mixed Unspecified Deep Shrub Floating

http://www.state.in.us/idem/owm/planbr/401/mitigation_monitoring.htmlhttp://www.state.in.us/idem/owm/planbr/401/mitigation_monitoring.html


8

Types

Forested wetland loss approached 7.98 ha (19.7 ac), but only 3.82 ha (9.4 ac) of forested wetland wereestablished as mitigation. Although it is IDEM’s policy to require a higher mitigation ratio for forestedthan for herbaceous wetland types, in practice IDEM required a slightly higher ratio for the shallow impacts(1.9:1) than for forested (1.7:1), and a much higher ratio for meadow (9.6:1) and open water (4.5:1). Whilethe forested type lost area through the certification process all other types gained area. This has the effectof trading forested wetland for the three biggest gainers: shallow emergent, open water, and, to a lesserextent, floating/submerged aquatic wetland.

The numbers in Table 1 support the theory that some wetland types are more difficult to mitigate thanothers. The overall failure rate can be calculated by dividing the area built by the area required. Forestedwetland attempts had a 71% failure rate. Regulators would have needed to require 3.4 hectares to receiveone hectare of forested wetland through mitigation. Meadow attempts had an 87% failure rate; for everyhectare of meadow received IDEM would have needed to require 7.6 hectares of meadow mitigation.Shallow attempts, on the other hand, had only a 17% failure rate and open water attempts had a 4% failurerate. Not enough floating, shrub or deep types were included in the study to produce meaningful failurerates.

Table 1: Failure Rates and RatiosType Failure Rate Required : Built Area

Forest 71% 3.4:1Shrub † 42% 1.7:1Meadow 87% 7.6:1Shallow 17% 1.2:1Deep †


9

not measured during officially recognized drought conditions (i.e. mid-range PDSI), it was a dry year. Thedelineation of wetlands may reflect weather variations. Determination of the degree of error associatedwith these variations from year to year would require repetition of these measurements.

Delineation

Wetland delineation is not a precise science. Delineation has, without a doubt, a significant potential forerror. Unfortunately the author is aware of no studies which seek to statistically evaluate some measure ofdelineation error such as an analysis of variance. Any such study would have to employ multipledelineators who would measure the same site. This was not possible through this study as it employed justone delineator, the author, who would have likely simply replicated the same delineation in the samelocation committing the same errors. More study related to the accuracy of wetland delineation is needed.Delineation errors most likely outweigh any error incurred due to GPS (recording) or GIS (editing) errors,especially when the wetland line falls on flat land or a very gentle slope. The majority of these mitigationsites, however, did not occur in such a setting.

Mapping

Although information abounds on the accuracy and precision of points recorded via GPS, the author couldfind no data on the precision of polygons mapped with this technology. One method for estimating thepolygon error associated with using GPS would be to draw a buffer around each polygon the width of thepoint error reported by the manufacturer, in this case 0.75 m. Half of this buffer should be inside thepolygon, and half outside the polygon. This, however, would represent a worst case scenario estimate.With the exception of multi-path type error (i.e. signal bouncing off an object near the receiver such as abuilding), which tends to distort positions in a single direction, errors are likely to be random at positionsalong the polygon. If this is the case, errors along the polygon are likely to negate each other whencalculating the area of the polygon. To truly estimate error one should repeatedly map an irregular polygonwith the unit and determine the variance of the area calculations. It is surprising that the manufacturer doesnot have these data available, and equally surprising that the data are not available from the academiccommunity.

Conclusion and Recommendations

This study measured the area of wetland and various vegetation communities established by 31 mitigationsites in Indiana, for the purpose of gauging the performance of compensatory mitigation in Indiana. TheIndiana Department of Environmental Management required a total of 34.31 ha (84.7 ac) of compensatorymitigation at these 31 sites to compensate for the 13.72 ha (33.9 ac) lost. Applicants established a total of15.21 ha (37.6 ac) of wetlands and other waters of the state at the sampled mitigation sites, resulting in anet gain of 1.49 ha (3.7 ac). Forested communities had a failure rate of approximately 71%, wet meadowhad a failure rate of approximately 87%, shallow emergent had a failure rate of approximately 17%, andopen water had a failure rate of approximately 4%. Based on the results of this study, mitigation ratiosshould be adjusted to overcome these failure rates. Regulatory agencies would have to require 3.4 ha offorested mitigation to receive 1 ha of forested wetland on the ground. Mitigation ratios would need to be7.6:1 for wet meadow, 1.2:1 for shallow emergent, and 1:1 for open water. These ratios do not, however,account for temporal loss of wetland function, or for losses do to noncompliance. Forested communitytypes experienced a net loss of 4.15 ha (10.3 ac), while the remaining vegetation communities experienceda net increase in area. This has the effect of trading forested wetland areas for those communities thatexperienced significant gains, namely shallow emergent and open water habitats.


10

Literature Cited

Association of State Wetland Managers. 2001. Mitigation Performance Topic Page.http://www.aswm.org/mitigation

Eliot, Windy. 1985. Implementing Mitigation Policies in San Francisco Bay: A Critique. California StateCoastal Conservancy. Oakland, CA. February 1985.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers. Wetland Research Program. Technical Report Y-87-1. January 1987.http://www.wes.army.mil/el/wetlands/wlpubs.html

Erwin, Kevin L. 1991. An Evaluation of Wetland Mitigation in the South Florida Water ManagementDistrict. Vol. 1. Contract #C89-0082-A1. http://www.aswm.org/mitigation/erwin91.pdf

Fennessy, Siobhan and Joanne Roehrs. 1997. A Functional Assessment of Mitigation Wetlands in Ohio.Comparisons with Natural Systems. State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Final Reportto the USEPA. June 1997.

Gallihugh, Jeanette L. 1998. Wetland Mitigation and 404 Permit Compliance. Vol. 2. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. Chicago, IL. June 1998. http://www.aswm.org/mitigation/gallihugh98.pdf

Gwin, Stephanie E., Mary E. Kentula, and Paul W. Shaffer. 1999. Evaluating the Effects of WetlandRegulation Through Hydrogeomorphic Classification and Landscape Profiles. Wetlands 19(3):477-489.

Johnson, Patricia A., Dana L. Mock, Emily J. Teachout, and Andy McMillan. 2000. Washington StateWetland Mitigation Evaluation Study. Phase 1: Compliance. Washington State Department ofEcology. June 2000. Publication No. 00-06-016. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0006016.html

Kentula, Mary E., Jean C. Sifneos, James W. Good, Michael Rylko, and Kathy Kunz. 1992. Trends andPatterns in Section 404 Permitting Requiring Compensatory Mitigation in Oregon andWashington, USA. Environmental Management 16:109-199.

Kunz, Kathleen, Michael Rylko, and Elaine Somers. 1988. An Assessment of Wetland Mitigation Practicesin Washington State. National Wetlands Newsletter 10: 2-4.

Magee, Teresa K., Ted L. Ernst, Mary E. Kentula, Kathleen A. Dwire. 1999. Floristic Comparison ofFreshwater Wetlands in an Urbanizing Environment. Wetlands 19(3): 517-534.

Mockler, Anna, Laura Casey, Mason Bowles, Nick Gillen, and Jon Hansen. 1998. Results of MonitoringKing County Wetland and Stream Mitigations. King County Department of Development andEnvironmental Services. http://www.aswm.org/mitigation/mockler98.pdf

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2000. Climate of 1999. U.S. Regional and Statewide Analyses.Includes December Summary and Drought Update. National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA). 12 January 2000.http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/research/1999/ann/us_regional.html

Race, Margaret S. 1985. Critique of Present Wetlands Mitigation Policies in the United States Based on anAnalysis of Past Restoration Projects in San Francisco Bay. Environmental Management, 9(1) pp.71-82.

http://www.aswm.org/mitigationhttp://www.wes.army.mil/el/wetlands/wlpubs.htmlhttp://www.aswm.org/mitigation/erwin91.pdfhttp://www.aswm.org/mitigation/gallihugh98.pdfhttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0006016.htmlhttp://www.aswm.org/mitigation/mockler98.pdfhttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/research/1999/ann/us_regional.html


11

Race, Margaret S. and Donna R. Christie. 1982. Coastal Zone Development: Mitigation, Marsh Creationand Decision-Making. Environmental Management, 6(4):317-328.

Race, Margaret S. and Mark S. Fonseca. 1996. Fixing Compensatory Mitigation: What Will It Take?Ecological Applications, 6(1) pp. 94-101.

Redmond, Ann. 1992. How Successful is Mitigation? National Wetlands Newsletter, 14(1): 5-6. February1992.

Reimold, Robert J., and Sue A. Cobler. 1986. Wetland Mitigation Effectiveness. United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency. Region I. USEPA contract no. 68-04-0015.

Robb, James. 2000. Indiana Wetland Compensatory Mitigation: Inventory. Final Report. EPA Grant #CD985482-010-0. Indiana Department of Environmental Management. May 2000.http://www.state.in.us/idem/owm/planbr/401/mitigation_monitoring.html

Sibbing, Julie M. 1997. Mitigation's Role in Wetland Loss. National Wetlands Newsletter, 19(1).

DeLaune, Mike. 2000. XTOOLS ArcView Extension. Oregon Department of Forestry. May 9, 2000.http://www.odf.state.or.us/StateForests/sfgis/default.htm#ODF State Forests GIS Tools

Sifneos, Jean C., Mary E. Kentula, and Paul Price. 1992. Impacts of Section 404 Permits RequiringCompensatory Mitigation of Freshwater Wetlands in Texas and Arkansas. The Texas Journal ofScience 44(4): 475-485.

Wilson, Renee F. and William J. Mitsch. 1996. Functional Assessment of Five Wetlands Constructed toMitigate Wetland Loss in Ohio, USA. Wetlands, 16(4) pp. 436-451.

http://www.state.in.us/idem/owm/planbr/401/mitigation_monitoring.htmlhttp://www.odf.state.or.us/StateForests/sfgis/default.htm#odf State Forests GIS Tools


12

Appendices


13

Appendix A: Area Built

IDEM_ID SITE_ID Type Map Date Built(ha) Built(ac)

1988-003-02-MTM-A1988003M01

FOREST 9/29/1999 0.216 0.535

1988003M02FOREST 9/24/1999 0.242 0.597

1988003M03FOREST 10/1/1999 0.013 0.032MEADOW 10/1/1999 0.041 0.101SHALLOW 10/1/1999 0.195 0.482SHRUB 10/7/1999 0.128 0.317

1988003M04FOREST 10/7/1999 0.033 0.083MEADOW 10/7/1999 0.134 0.33OPEN 10/7/1999 0.051 0.126SHALLOW 10/7/1999 0.233 0.575SHRUB 10/7/1999 0.253 0.626

1990-002-43-MTM-A1990002M01

FOREST 7/21/1999 0.195 0.481MEADOW 7/21/1999 0.009 0.023SHALLOW 7/21/1999 0.033 0.081

1992-003-02-ARE-A1992003M01

DEEP 9/22/1999 0.182 0.451OPEN 9/22/1999 0.3 0.74SHALLOW 9/21/1999 0.814 2.012

1993-006-29-MTM-A1993006M01

FOREST 9/8/1999 0.121 0.3SHALLOW 9/8/1999 0.013 0.033

1993-017-03-MTM-A1993017M01

FLOATING 7/13/1999 0.065 0.162FOREST 7/13/1999 0.043 0.106


14

IDEM_ID SITE_ID Type Map Date Built(ha) Built(ac)SHALLOW 7/13/1999 0.098 0.241SHRUB 7/13/1999 0.02 0.048

1994-005-34-HAK-A1994005M01

FOREST 7/21/1999 0.023 0.057OPEN 7/21/1999 0.889 2.197SHALLOW 7/21/1999 0.292 0.721

1994-016-20-HAK-A1994016M01

FLOATING 6/23/1999 0.08 0.197MEADOW 6/23/1999 0.016 0.041

1994-022-17-MTM-A1994022M01

FOREST 6/22/1999 0.08 0.198OPEN 6/22/1999 0.242 0.598SHALLOW 6/22/1999 0.138 0.341

1994-031-17-MTM-A1994031M01

FOREST 10/13/1999 0.662 1.636MEADOW 10/13/1999 0.047 0.116SHALLOW 10/13/1999 0.091 0.226

1994031M02FOREST 10/12/1999 0.133 0.329MATURE 10/12/1999 0.149 0.367FORESTMEADOW 10/12/1999 0.316 0.782SHALLOW 10/12/1999 0.049 0.121

1994-042-64-MTM-A1994042M01

FOREST 8/4/1999 0.025 0.061MEADOW 8/4/1999 0.198 0.49OPEN 8/5/1999 0.092 0.228SHALLOW 8/4/1999 0.82 2.027

1994042M03EXISTING 7/29/1999 0.033 0.082WETLANDOPEN 7/29/1999 0.452 1.117SHALLOW 7/29/1999 0.022 0.055

1994042M04


15

IDEM_ID SITE_ID Type Map Date Built(ha) Built(ac)FLOATING 7/28/1999 0.063 0.157FOREST 7/28/1999 0.002 0.006SHALLOW 7/28/1999 0.009 0.023

1994042M05FOREST 9/17/1999 0.045 0.111SHALLOW 9/17/1999 0.268 0.663

1994042M07FLOATING 9/16/1999 0.158 0.389

1994042M08FLOATING 9/16/1999 0.009 0.022FOREST 9/16/1999 0.003 0.007OPEN 9/16/1999 0.111 0.274SHALLOW 9/16/1999 0.039 0.095

1994042M09EXISTING 9/17/1999 0.003 0.007WETLANDFOREST 9/17/1999 0.003 0.008OPEN 9/17/1999 0.097 0.24SHALLOW 9/17/1999 0.027 0.068

1994042M13FLOATING 11/3/1999 0.113 0.279MEADOW 9/16/1999 0.002 0.004SHALLOW 11/3/1999 0.024 0.059

1994-054-79-MTM-A1994054M01

FLOATING 7/20/1999 0.024 0.06SHALLOW 7/20/1999 0.104 0.258

1994054M02FLOATING 7/20/1999 0.107 0.263FOREST 7/20/1999 0.038 0.093

1994054M03OPEN 7/20/1999 0.03 0.075SHALLOW 7/20/1999 0.075 0.184

1995-063-45-MTM-A1995063M01

DEEP 7/15/1999 0.647 1.598EXISTING 7/15/1999 0.42 1.037WETLANDFOREST 7/15/1999 0.751 1.855MEADOW 7/15/1999 0.059 0.146


16

IDEM_ID SITE_ID Type Map Date Built(ha) Built(ac)OPEN 7/15/1999 0.132 0.325SHALLOW 7/15/1999 0.918 2.267

1996-030-32-HAK-A1996030M02

DEEP 9/2/1999 0.087 0.215FLOATING 9/2/1999 0.283 0.699FOREST 8/30/1999 0.041 0.101OPEN 11/3/1999 0.145 0.358SHALLOW 8/30/1999 0.037 0.091

1996030M03FLOATING 9/3/1999 0.033 0.082FOREST 9/3/1999 0.047 0.117OPEN 9/3/1999 0.398 0.983

1996-085-45-MTM-A1996085M01

FOREST 8/10/1999 0.143 0.353

1996-089-79-MTM-A1996089M01

FLOATING 7/19/1999 0.219 0.541FOREST 7/19/1999 0.874 2.159SHALLOW 7/19/1999 0.845 2.088

1996-092-71-HAK-A1996092M01

FOREST 9/15/1999 0.09 0.222


17

Appendix B: Area Lost

IDEM_ID Type Loss(ha) Loss(ac)1988-003-02-MTM-A

FOREST 4.44 11.10

1990-002-43-MTM-AMIXED 0.6 1.50

1992-003-02-ARE-AFOREST 0.548 1.37

OPEN 0.348 0.87

1993-006-29-MTM-AFOREST 0.036 0.09

MEADOW 0.32 0.80

1993-017-03-MTM-AFOREST 0.156 0.39

1994-005-34-HAK-ASHALLOW 0.104 0.26

1994-016-20-HAK-ADEEP 0.02 0.05

1994-022-17-MTM-AFOREST 0.116 0.29

SHALLOW 0.132 0.33

1994-031-17-MTM-AMEADOW 0.32 0.80

MIXED 0.132 0.33

OPEN 0.132 0.33

SHALLOW 0.656 1.64

1994-042-64-MTM-AFOREST 0.916 2.29

MEADOW 0.008 0.02

OPEN 0.206 0.52

SHALLOW 0.302 0.76

SHRUB 0.12 0.30

1994-054-79-MTM-AFOREST 0.148 0.37


18

IDEM_ID Type Loss(ha) Loss(ac)1995-063-45-MTM-A

FOREST 0.48 1.20

SHALLOW 1.16 2.90

SHRUB 0.08 0.20

1996-030-32-HAK-ASHALLOW 0.88 2.20

1996-085-45-MTM-AFOREST 0.148 0.37

1996-089-79-MTM-AFLOATING 0.204516 0.51

FOREST 0.485108 1.21

SHALLOW 0.021736 0.05

SHRUB 0 0.00

1996-092-71-HAK-AFOREST 0.504 1.26


19

Appendix C: Area Required

IDEM_ID SITE_ID Type Required(ha) Required(ac)1988-003-02-MTM-A

1988003M01FOREST 0.28 0.7

1988003M02FOREST 0.52 1.3

1988003M03FOREST 1.48 3.7

1988003M04DEEP 0.02 0.05

FOREST 1.74 4.35

SHRUB 0.4 1

1990-002-43-MTM-A1990002M01

UNSPECIFIED 0.8 2

1992-003-02-ARE-A1992003M01

FOREST 2.56 6.4

OPEN 1.356 3.39

SHALLOW 0.44 1.1

UNSPECIFIED 0.172 0.43

1993-006-29-MTM-A1993006M01

MEADOW 0.52 1.3

1993-017-03-MTM-A1993017M01

MIXED 0.28 0.7

1994-005-34-HAK-A1994005M01

SHALLOW 0.544 1.36

1994-016-20-HAK-A1994016M01


20

IDEM_ID SITE_ID Type Required(ha) Required(ac)SHRUB 0.04 0.1

1994-022-17-MTM-A1994022M01

MIXED 0.3 0.75

1994-031-17-MTM-A1994031M01

FOREST 0.312 0.78

MEADOW 1.248 3.12

1994031M02FOREST 0.36 0.9

MEADOW 1.44 3.6

1994-042-64-MTM-A1994042M01

FOREST 0.62 1.55

MEADOW 0.984 2.46

SHALLOW 1.2 3

SHALLOW 0.112 0.28

UNSPECIFIED 0.032 0.08

1994042M02DEEP 0.028 0.07

FOREST 0.012 0.03

1994042M03DEEP 0.0892 0.223

FOREST 0.0588 0.147

SHALLOW 0.098 0.245

SHRUB 0.0124 0.031

1994042M04DEEP 0.122 0.305

FOREST 0.0332 0.083

SHALLOW 0.0388 0.097

1994042M05SHALLOW 0.504 1.26

1994042M06SHALLOW 0.08 0.2

1994042M07


21

IDEM_ID SITE_ID Type Required(ha) Required(ac)DEEP 0.156 0.39

SHALLOW 0.008 0.02

SHRUB 0.008 0.02

1994042M08DEEP 0.028 0.07

SHALLOW 0.04 0.1

SHRUB 0.012 0.03

1994042M09DEEP 0.052 0.13

SHALLOW 0.072 0.18

SHRUB 0.012 0.03

1994042M10DEEP 0.156 0.39

SHALLOW 0.072 0.18

SHRUB 0.02 0.05

1994042M11SHALLOW 0.408 1.02

SHRUB 0.152 0.38

1994042M12DEEP 0.184 0.46

SHRUB 0.04 0.1

1994042M13SHALLOW 0.056 0.14

1994042M14SHALLOW 0.036 0.09

1994042M15UNSPECIFIED 0.072 0.18

1994042M16SHALLOW 0.072 0.18

1994042M17SHALLOW 0.048 0.12

1994042M18SHALLOW 0.128 0.32

1994-054-79-MTM-A1994054M01


22

IDEM_ID SITE_ID Type Required(ha) Required(ac)MIXED 0.4 1

1994054M02MIXED 0.468 1.17

1994054M03SHALLOW 0.452 1.13

1995-063-45-MTM-A1995063M01

FOREST 2.36 5.9

MEADOW 2 5

MIXED 1.36 3.4

1996-030-32-HAK-A1996030M01

OPEN 0.76 1.9

SHALLOW 0.24 0.6

1996030M02SHALLOW 1.16 2.9

1996030M03OPEN 0.96 2.4

SHALLOW 0.24 0.6

1996-085-45-MTM-A1996085M01

FOREST 0.1 0.25

MEADOW 0.048 0.12

1996-089-79-MTM-A1996089M01

FLOATING 0.2076 0.519

FOREST 2.3304 5.826

SHALLOW 0.1364 0.341

1996-092-71-HAK-A1996092M01

FOREST 0.224 0.56

FOREST 0.192 0.48


23

Appendix D: Drought Severity

IDEM_ID SITE_ID Map Date Palmer Drought Severity Index1988-003-02-MTM-A

1988003M01 9/29/1999 mid-range1988003M02 9/24/1999 mid-range1988003M03 10/1/1999 mid-range1988003M03 10/7/1999 mid-range1988003M04 10/7/1999 mid-range

1990-002-43-MTM-A1990002M01 7/21/1999 mid-range

1992-003-02-ARE-A1992003M01 9/21/1999 mid-range1992003M01 9/22/1999 mid-range

1993-006-29-MTM-A1993006M01 9/8/1999 moderate drought

1993-017-03-MTM-A1993017M01 7/13/1999 mid-range

1994-005-34-HAK-A1994005M01 7/21/1999 mid-range

1994-016-20-HAK-A1994016M01 6/23/1999 mid-range

1994-022-17-MTM-A1994022M01 6/22/1999 mid-range

1994-031-17-MTM-A1994031M01 10/13/1999 mid-range1994031M02 10/12/1999 mid-range

1994-042-64-MTM-A1994042M01 8/4/1999 mid-range1994042M01 8/5/1999 mid-range1994042M03 7/29/1999 mid-range1994042M04 7/28/1999 mid-range1994042M05 9/17/1999 mid-range1994042M07 9/16/1999 mid-range1994042M08 9/16/1999 mid-range1994042M09 9/17/1999 mid-range1994042M13 9/16/1999 mid-range1994042M13 11/3/1999 severe drought


24

IDEM_ID SITE_ID Map Date Palmer Drought Severity Index1994042M14 7/29/1999 mid-range

1994-054-79-MTM-A1994054M01 7/20/1999 mid-range1994054M02 7/20/1999 mid-range1994054M03 7/20/1999 mid-range

1995-063-45-MTM-A1995063M01 7/15/1999 mid-range

1996-030-32-HAK-A1996030M02 8/30/1999 mid-range1996030M02 9/2/1999 moderate drought1996030M02 11/3/1999 severe drought1996030M03 9/3/1999 moderate drought

1996-085-45-MTM-A1996085M01 8/10/1999 mid-range

1996-089-79-MTM-A1996089M01 7/19/1999 mid-range

1996-092-71-HAK-A1996092M01 9/15/1999 mid-range


25

#S

30 0 30 Meters

N

#S

30 0 30 Meters

N

#S

30 0 30 Meters

N

1988003M021988003M01

1988003M03


26

30 0 30 Meters

N

#S

30 0 30 Meters

N

30 0 30 Meters

N

1988003M04

1990002M01 1992003M01


27

30 0 30 Meters

N

#S

30 0 30 Meters

N

#S

30 0 30 Meters

N

#S

30 0 30 Meters

N

1993006M01 1993017M01

1994005M01 1994016M01


28

#S

1994022M01

30 0 30 Meters

N

30 0 30 Meters

N

1994022M01

1994031M01


29

40 0 40 Meters

N

#S

30 0 30 Meters

N

30 0 30 Meters

N

1994031M02

1994042M01

1994042M03

1994042M04


30

30 0 30 Meters

N

#S

#S

30 0 30 Meters

N

30 0 30 MetersN

#S

#S

30 0 30 Meters

N

1994042M05

1994042M11

1994042M08

1994042M09

1994042M07

1994042M13

1994054M02

1994054M01


31

#S

30 0 30 Meters

N

60 0 60 Meters

N

#S

1996030M02

0 30 Meters

N

#S

30 0 30 Meters

N

1994054M03

1996030M02 1996030M03

1995063M01


32

#

30 0 30 Meters

N

#S

30 0 30 Meters

N

#S

30 0 30 Meters

N

1996085M01 1996092M01

1996089M01

EPA Grant # CD985482-010-0Cover ArtAcknowledgementsExecutive SummaryIntroductionMethodsSite SelectionEquipmentWetland DelineationVegetation Cover TypesOpen Water/Bare Ground this class was reserved for those areas that supported little or no vegetation. This included areas with sparse vegetation visually estimated at less than 10% aerial coverage of the area.

GPS MappingGIS editing and analysis

ResultsDiscussionNo-Net-Loss?TypesAccuracyDroughtDelineationMapping

Conclusion and RecommendationsLiterature Cited

Documents

Indiana Wetland Compensatory Mitigation: Area Analysis€¦ · wetlands experienced a net loss of 4.15 ha (10.3 ac) raising concerns that forested areas are being replaced with shallow